I get lots of junk email, perhaps more than most, and I ignore 99.9 percent of it, but the other day I got one from the Rand Paul campaign that for some reason stood out, and in an idle moment I opened it, and read:

"Can you help our campaign fight back, today and in the coming weeks, against the libelous attacks of the leftist media?"

Libelous? Hmmm, I thought, that’s a strange way for a libertarian to phrase it.

Libertarians are not exactly fans of libel laws: aside from being an infringement on the First Amendment, the whole idea of "libel" is based on a nonsensical premise: that you somehow "own" your reputation, which, if damaged, must be repaired with a nice fat check from the libeler. Yet one’s reputation exists solely in the minds of other people, and no way do your rights of ownership extend that far.

Now the ins-and-outs of libel law are a relatively arcane aspect of libertarian theory, and not everyone in the movement "gets it," not even the son of Ron Paul, so we’ll give him a pass, I thought. However, in the next moment it occurred to me that to call something "libelous" is, by definition, to assert that it’s somehow untrue. For example: the statement "Rand Paul is a murderer" would be genuinely libelous, because as far as I know it’s demonstrably false. But are the attacks on Rand Paul in the "leftist media" based on the facts, or did Rachel Maddow make up that interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, in which he came out against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Well, no, she didn’t make it up: she simply quoted his own words back at him – and he ran away from them (and her) as fast as he possibly could. Then there was that piece in Gentlemen’s Quarterly, which no one took very seriously, detailing Rand Paul’s college hijinks, including one episode where he and his friends supposedly "kidnapped" one of their female classmates, "forced" her to take some bong hits, and demanded she worship at the altar of "Aqua Buddha." Ha ha, very funny – although, to be sure, author Jason Zengerle took this a whole lot more seriously than anybody else. In any case, it turned out that the woman wasn’t really "kidnapped," although the incident as described did indeed take place – so here’s another case of non-libel. And now we have Zengerle making another go of it, a lot more successfully this time, with yet another piece in GQ in which he writes:

"Ron Paul, in addition to his extreme views on the federal government, has been a harsh critic of the Republican Party’s ‘military adventurism,’ and in the past Rand has faithfully echoed his father’s views. He opposed the war in Iraq, once characterized the September 11 attacks as ‘blowback for our foreign policy,’ and scoffed at the threat of Iranian nukes. And yet here he was in Washington, seeking out a secret meeting with some of the Ron Paul Revolutionaries’ biggest bogeymen. At a private office in Dupont Circle, he talked foreign policy with Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Tom Donnelly, three prominent neocons who’d been part of an effort to defeat him during the primary. ‘He struck me as genuinely interested in trying to understand why people like us were so apoplectic,’ Senor says of their two-hour encounter. ‘He wanted to get educated about our problem with him. He wasn’t confrontational, and he wasn’t disagreeable. He didn’t seem cemented in his views. He was really in absorption mode.’"

Let’s unpack this bit of news, and mine its implications – which are many, and not at all favorable to Rand. First, it wasn’t the neocons who were courting Rand: Zengerle explicitly says it was Rand who was "seeking out" the meeting, and he wanted it "secret." So he was slinking around drumming up support, like any ordinary run-of-the-mill politician – so what?

Sure, he’s a politician, and they all (with one exception, as far as I know) suck up to everyone and anyone, but these three – Kristol, Senor, and Donnelly – aren’t just anyone. They are the three most anti-libertarian figures on the American Right, with King Kristol being the godfather of the neocons – a position he inherited from his father — and the other two his consiglieri. Not only that, but Kristol has a long history of not only attacking libertarians, but of smearing Rand’s father as an extremist who represents the "wooly fringe," a "crank," and, if not an outright anti-Semite, certainly the sort of candidate who welcomes and naturally attracts them.

This is the man Rand sought out, which raises a question: if the Rand Paul campaign wants us to give them money to fight the "libelous" attacks of the "leftist media," then why in the name of all that’s holy is Rand chasing after someone who libeled his own father?

Yes, this is about Rand’s foreign policy views, but it’s also about his character. The GOP is supposed to be committed to "family values": it’s been their shtick for years. Yet what kind of family values is it when a Republican candidate has no compunctions about stabbing his own father in the back? Faced with the crew that relentlessly slandered Ron Paul at every opportunity, Rand, we are told, went into "absorption mode."

It was a personal and ideological betrayal on a scale that’s painful to contemplate, and it was repeated the following month, when, we are told by Zengerle,

"He met with officials from the powerful lobbying group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which has frequently clashed with Ron Paul over what the group views as his insufficient support of Israel. Paul, according to one person familiar with the AIPAC meeting, ‘told them what they wanted to hear: ‘I’m more reasonable than my father on the things you care about.’ He was very solicitous.’"

Does it get any slimier than this? I’m sure it does: after all, who knows how many other secret meetings he’s had with what sorts of creepy lobbyists, foreign or domestic? And I’ll bet he was just as solicitous as he was with the AIPAC crowd.

I can see that any politician, who is out there seeking support, would do well to neutralize his harshest critics, short of winning them over. That’s not what’s going on here.

You’ll notice that Paul the Lesser isn’t trimming his sails uniformly, that is, moderating his voice on all the issues: he’s still denouncing Obama’s economic program in rather strident terms, even comparing him to Hitler without mentioning the German dictator by name, and he’s still going strong on the tax-and-spend front, all of which comports with the views of his nation-wide network of libertarian supporters, who are largely funding his campaign. Where he consistently goes off the rails is on the crucial foreign policy front, and that’s what the meeting with Kristol entailed – reassuring the neocons that he’s not a chip off the old block when it comes to endless war and persecution of Muslims.

The New York City mosque issue came up, I’ll bet, and on that score Rand did not disappoint his newfound neocon friends. Indeed, the Weekly Standard has been crowing about the familial split on this question, mocking the elder Paul for the apostasy of his errant son. Noting that Ron had taken an unequivocal stand against the neocons’ anti-Muslim hate campaign, and that the Texas congressman specifically named the neoconservatives as the prime agitators, Michael Goldfarb jeered in Kristol’s rag:

"So, is Rand Paul just another neocon stooge to his father?"

Well, yes, it looks like Rand Paul is indeed a neocon stooge, although
his father is hardly likely to say so.

So why – you ask — am I making such a big deal about this? After all, Rand Paul is just another opportunistic politician, who is maybe playing it "smart" by keeping his "real" opinions to himself and hoping to fly in to his target – a Senate seat – under the radar. What’s so wrong with that?

What’s wrong is that it eviscerates the moral core of libertarianism – opposition to mass murder by an ever-expanding State – and leaves only a hollow core, an "economic" shell that allows him to "pass" as just another right-wing Republican. Which is what Rand Paul will be if and when he’s elected.

When he assures AIPAC he’s more reasonable than his father about the things they care about, what exactly is he saying? That he’ll keep the billions in "aid" to Israel flowing? That he won’t make a fuss about Israel’s brutal occupation of the West Bank and its endless provocations in Lebanon and the "settlements"? That, and much more: for what AIPAC cares most about, these days, is ginning up a war with Iran.

So we have to ask: how much "more reasonable" will Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) be about bombing Tehran than his "unreasonable" antiwar father? When it comes time to vote on going to war with Iran, libertarians have good reason to worry about the prospect of Senator Paul voting "aye."

What’s wrong with Rand Paul is what’s been historically wrong with an entire wing of the libertarian movement, one that seemed to have died off after being defeated in the internal battles of the Libertarian Party during the 1980s: the so-called "liberventionists," who oppose the expansion of the American state on the home front, but heartily endorse the "liberating" expansiveness of the American Empire overseas.

This retrograde trend was a holdover from the days when the libertarian movement was organizationally (and ideologically) bound hand and foot to the Goldwater-Buckley-National Review-generated conservative movement of the 1960s. Its influence largely diminished in the 1980s, after a determined struggle waged by Murray N. Rothbard and the Radical Caucus of the Libertarian Party, and due to the influence of the Kochtopus, which, by the end of the decade had become the dominant trend in our movement.

The liberventionists came back with a vengeance, however, in the wake of 9/11 – when all the worst aspects of everyone and everything came to the fore. "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes," wrote "libertarian" columnist and Reason magazine contributing editor Cathy Young, "perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks," in the course of advising us to not fight the "inevitable" post-9/11 attack on our civil liberties (thanks, Cathy: you should go back to Russia). It was then that Reason writer Ron Bailey invented libertarian Trotskyism in rationalizing the Iraq war, positing that the US government is the ideal agency for exporting "liberty" worldwide, and that we can’t have "liberty in one country." Over at Cato, foreign policy analyst Ted Galen Carpenter proposed that we get right to the heart of the problem and invade Pakistan – a suggestion taken up by President Barack Obama nearly a decade later – but, hey, better late than never, right? (Gee, how come Cato isn’t touting this as a victory in the policy wars?)

In short, people fold under pressure. They give up their ideals, or, rather their professed ideals, and go with the flow. It’s too hard to stand up, virtually alone, and say what’s right. Let someone else do it. After all, the price truth-tellers pay is often quite steep – as steep as not being a US Senator.

That’s the argument Rand’s apologists will no doubt utilize in defense of his blatant betrayal. He has to do this to get elected. Everybody does. But do they really?

Ron Paul didn’t sell out, and yet still got elected to Congress – and reelected many times. Is Rand really unfamiliar with the elder Paul’s electoral history – how Ron triumphed over every effort to smear him and sideline him as a "kook," as Kristol would (and has) put it? Is it necessary to point to the example of his own father to disprove this facile and paper-thin rationalization for the worst sort of pandering?

What gets me mad is that it isn’t even pandering to a discernible purpose. Kristol and his gang are completely discredited, along with the neoconservative clique that dragged the GOP down to electoral defeat and ideological bankruptcy. Oh, and they bankrupted the country along the way.

These are the people Rand is turning to for help with his campaign?

Rand Paul has declared, from the start, that he’s the "tea party" candidate, and yet Kristol’s Weekly Standard has been viscerally hostile to the tea partiers from the very beginning, because anti-populism is a key plank in the neoconservative platform, unless – of course – it’s anti-Muslim populism. The very phrase "big government conservatism," which the tea partiers justifiably detest, was invented by the Weekly Standard, along with the fiscally imprudent variety of "national greatness conservatism" Kristol and Co. have been peddling for years. Why, if he’s riding the wave of tea party activism, is Rand forging an alliance with their worst enemies?

He’s way ahead in the polls. He doesn’t need Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard, he doesn’t need the neocons – who aren’t known to exist in any great numbers in Kentucky – and he doesn’t need AIPAC either. In short, there was no good reason for him to run after and appease his father’s nemeses. So why did he do it?

You can ask him, but I’ll save you the trouble. Rand Paul has no principles: he’ll do or say anything to get into that Senate seat – yes, even give up his faith in Aqua Buddha. Or his loyalty to whatever values he once pretended to hold. He’d even betray his own father – and, indeed, he has done precisely that, giving Kristol’s gremlin-bloggers a choice opportunity to once again mock the elder Paul.

Yes, but once he gets in office, he’ll stand up for principle and it’ll all be worth it: the kowtowing to the neocons, the groveling before AIPAC, the capitulation to religious and ethnic prejudices in the case of the mosque issue. Just you wait and see.

Balderdash!

In Paul’s case we’re talking about a winning candidate, or at least one whose victory is highly likely: if he’s selling out at this point, one can only wonder what he’d do if he were behind in the polls. I shudder to think about it.

If he’s already selling out for no good reason, and this before he even gets into office, ask yourself what he’ll do to stay in office. There’s no end to this daisy chain of betrayal-and-rationalization, no logical cut off point for the "temporary" adjustments supposedly necessary for electoral success.

The great danger is that the election of Rand Paul to the US Senate will change the ideological complexion of libertarianism, as it is perceived by the public, and quite possibly succeed in derailing the ongoing work of his father and the Campaign for Liberty in challenging the neocons’ hegemony in the GOP when it comes to foreign policy. The recent release of the House GOP caucus "Pledge to America," which repeats this same neocon litany of endless war and extravagant "defense" expenditures, shows that this fight is far from over – and Rand Paul is on the wrong side.

Finally, I have to comment on the eerie similarities between the political and personal dynamics of the Paul family and those of the Bush family. In both cases, the son is determined to obliterate the legacy and influence of his father, with Bush Senior (and his aides) opposed to Junior’s unhinged militarism and hostile to his neocon advisors. Here we have Rand courting those very same advisors in secret meetings, in rebellion against his father. I don’t know what personal demons have gained possession of Rand Paul’s soul since his primary victory, but they bear a striking resemblance to those which drove George W. Bush and his administration over a cliff called Iraq. Indeed, Rand looks and often sounds like George W. – like a man in over his head, a hollow man with a sense of entitlement albeit without any moral or ideological core. The resemblance is eerie – and telling.

In spite of his youthful flirtation with the Aqua Buddha cult, Rand Paul today no doubt considers himself a Christian, and so he’s probably familiar with the story in the Bible wherein the Devil takes Jesus up to the mountain and shows him the cities of the world spread out as far as the eye can see: "All this can be yours," says the Evil One to the Son of God, "if only you will worship me." We all know what Jesus said in reply – "No waaaaaaay, dude!" – but Rand Paul, son of Ron, has apparently come up with a different answer.

Slightly off-topic, but there were some very interesting comments in New York this week from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is difficult to find his unfiltered comments in the news reports so I provide here a link to the transcript of his interview with Larry King and another link to his statement today at the United Nations. Maybe material here for a future column?

KING: Do you not understand the fears about nuclear — nuclear weaponry in your country? With all the hostility in the region, don't you understand the fears over your having nuclear weapons? That could trigger something that you might not even start.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Who is concerned?

KING: The world is concerned.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Who is the world? Who represents the world? The United States? Its friends? No, the world is a very big place. And what U.S. officials are wrong about is that they see themselves as the world but they are not.

KING: All right. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was a guest recently on our program and he said, quote, "The greatest threat facing humanity." Humanity. That's the world. "Is that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons."

If Israel feels that strongly and you don't directly assure them, don't you fear that they might do a first strike?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): So you think that we are concerned — we should be concerned about allaying Mr. Netanyahu's fears and concerns?

KING: Yes.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Why should we be doing that for him? Who is he?

KING: He's the head of a country —

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Who is he in the first place, to begin with? He is a skilled killer. All dictators in the world have condemned others, and he's one of many of them.

KING: Maybe —

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): He should be put on trial for killing Palestinians, for placing Gaza under siege, which is against the law and against the spirit of the charter of the United Nations.

He should be put on trial for killing women and children, and you want to allay his fears and concerns here?

An interesting take from Justin about yet another US politician with an Oedipus complex, and somewhat at odds with Robert Scheer' s view of the man, who seems to discern a refreshing honesty there: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/22/could_summe…
One point worth noting for the record is that in the wake of 9/11, not "everyone's worst aspects" came to the fore. Both Noam Chomsky and Cornell West were quick to point out that gangsters everywhere had been mightily encouraged by the attacks, and they warned against following through with an escalating cycle of violence. They advocated prosecution of the criminals through the courts of law. Tom Paine would have probably called their view point 'common sense', but it was clearly not common enough at the time.

I don't know what to make of Rand. But I'm not optimistic. Based on his website, his views on issues is seemingly libertarian/conservative, but the text is so lame and anemic it looks like a copy/paste job of a few libertarian sentences from elsehwere. Not particularly passionate about anything. It all looks good on national issues, not much there on foreign issues, other than when it comes to sovereignity, he seems to criticize subservience to "foreign bodies." I take it he doesn't see Israel as a foreign body.

Meeting with Kristol is a disgraceful act. No matter the purpose of the meeting, no matter if you're trying to court the opposition, or if you are trying to present yourself as a listener/consensus builder, etc. no serious person ought to pay attention to that creature.

One of the links you provide is a National Review blog post in the candidate came by his office the other day and they had a little chat: "He clearly thinks we have no business being in Afghanistan anymore, although he’s very reluctant to come out and say it. "

Would you please tell me what good is does to be against a war and yet not give voice to your opposition — especially if you're a US Senator? Don't make me laugh. He opposes foreign aid, in the abstract, but what do you think assuring AIPAC that he supports "everything they care about" involves? Grow up. As for only supporting Israel "when it's in our national interest" — in other words, he's giving them a blank check, and will invoke some incredible interpretation of our "national interest" to justify it if necessary.

"What’s wrong is that it eviscerates the moral core of libertarianism – opposition to mass murder by an ever-expanding State – and leaves only a hollow core, an "economic" shell that allows him to "pass" as just another right-wing Republican" – Justin

Isn't this where libertarianism, despite the rhetoric, has always been? Alleged anti-war libertarians have always sought comfort and broke bread with warmongering Republicans as long as they both believed in the fictictious "free market". Doesn't Justin to this day defend McCarthyism for example?

Yeah or maybe he just wanted to talk to these guys and see what their beef was. I think you jump to a lot of conclusions here Justin and while you make some good points about the implications, I really cannot see from a logical perspective how you got all the way to your conclusions.

This is speculation pure and simple. I say let's wait and see. It's way too early to draw these kinds of conclusions based on this evidence. Not exactly libelous but also not exactly on solid footing either.

In the end it looks like Rand has it in the bag….unless he makes a really big mistake in the debates. So, really, the telling point for Rand's true colors will be when the vote comes up. Then we'll know.

Don't turn the "good" (Rand) into the enemy of the "perfect" (Ron). And I won't even begin to go into the ways in which Ron himself could be accused of "selling out" by politically-correctly holding his tongue on, ahem, certain unnamed issues, if we are going to be puritanical about it.

A politician has to get elected, and to get elected Senator in our system, one has to sell out slightly more than a Representative, but at the end of the day, Representative Ron Paul is going to have more influence over Senator Rand Paul than anyone.

Revolutionaries can be ideologues; politicians trying to work within the system cannot. Rand Paul has never advertised himself as a revolutionary. Ron Paul plays at revolutionary, but works within the system, and does it well.

Fallacy of composition is exactly the deceit which libertarians indulge in by blaming 'the state' (and exonerating capitalism) for imperialist warfare. Please read Conn Hallinan's column "The Real ‘Merchants of Death’ " on this site today and take notice of the "Where the profits go" part. They don't go to 'the state'. They don't go to the people. The profits go to the capitalists of Wall Street who control the state. You libertarians can whine all you want about 'but its not true vonMises, Rothbard free market capitalism so it doesn't count' but what you are doing is making excuses for capitalist imperialism – like Rand Paul.

Excellent and important article. Ones take on Rand (as opposed to Ron) will be another useful litmus test for libertarians. Your point about the Trotskyite type libertarians ("exporting" liberty at gunpoint, supposedly) is on the mark.
Ron over the years gained more and more steel in his backbone. Aside from a few deviations he got more hard core Rothbardian, not less. Rand is already on the road to corruption.
A strong and consistent libertarian critique of Rand if he wins will be essential. No mercy!

I dont blame Rand Paul. The ethics and righteousness that one can learn at home from parents is not enough in this corrupt,selfish,and contolled environment. He just wants to succeed at any cost. This cost is determined by Israel by corrupting and controlling. There is only one force which seems to have exerted the most destructive influence on him in his desire for power and that force is pushed by neocons. Unless we destroy these forces of darkness, US will not see any sane patriotic Republicans or Democrtas holding any public office.

Justin; I love you man, but please hold your fire. This "report" is mostly hearsay, and not from friendly sources. If I had any political capital, I would meet with William Kristol. There is (theoretically) common ground; the lobby must realize that Israel is doomed without American support, and this support rests on the very thin reed of ignorance and apathy (actually a pretty thick reed, and not just in Kentucky). The lobby needs to unwind from the hardline suicide course it has set, They don't need any more enemies. Maybe they aren't feeling so invincible they can continue to simply ignore their opponents of good will. Maybe, they should meet with Ron, too.

We don't know what was agreed or even discussed. Obviously Rand is going to be tempted to sell out, but ultimately it's his choice and he has at least one good advisor. Give him the benefit of the doubt, or at least relax, take a deep breath, let a little out and squeeze the trigger. No more friendly fire!

The American Founders were certainly revolting with an eye on changing out a corrupt and hierarchical-but-working system with something more perfect. To my mind, there’s no question anymore that our system is far more corrupt, murderous (foreign policy-wise, at least) and probably doomed than the one they revolted against. In fact, if that generation were magically transported to the contemporary, I think there’s no question they would take a look around, shake their heads, and quickly begin going about inciting a revolution.

The Pauls and the Tea Party movement are the last gasp on the road to salvaging our system before revolution. If they win, revolution is slightly less likely; if they lose, sooner or later it’s inevitable, and we'll need to know why our system went bad in order to "perfect" the flaws that led to its corruption.

"Absorption mode," huh? Well, Sponge Paul won't have this Kentuckian's vote. I gave him up as another trimming, opportunistic establishmentarian soon after the primary, when I learned that he was already enthusiastically doing the worm before the Israel Lobby. In fact, I see little reason to turn out to the polls at all this year.

In any case, thanks for another fine article, Mr. Raimondo. As depressing as it is to read about the horrible truth—lies, betrayals, atrocities and stupidities ad infinitum—I can only imagine how oppressive it is to research and write about it on an almost daily basis. My hat's off to you.

Actually, I think Justin is right in holding Rand's feet to the fire as much as possible. It is his role to play, which can have considerable effect on Rand's future performance if he, in fact, does win. Justin has an ideological position to defend and he should stake t hat territory and assess Rand Paul from it.

On the other hand, I have no issue with Rand Paul being less than perfect, or even only half-good, for as has been pointed out there is a lot to like about his domestic policy positions. For me it's about his commitment to curtailing/ending the central bank. That is the fulcrum on which the foreign policy pivots. Without the money spigot the policy cannot be sustained for long.

I have not and will not give any politician my money or my vote (with the exception of Rand's father) on ideological grounds but I will cheer the things that Rand Paul gets right as well as cheer on anyone who will call him out on those things he gets wrong.

Keep in mind that Rand Paul is still a candidate at this point – running in Kentucky. I understand many want him to speak pure libertarianism, consequences (losing the election) be damned.

I would rather he "play the game" and be careful with his words in order to become a senator, so he can then be in a position to affect real change. Many of you don't realize that Ron Paul ran a very similar campaign when he was first elected into congress without the benefit of incumbency; he ran away from his past statements about drugs and he avoided foreign policy like the plague.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Rand is doing the same thing. But even his given platform is one that we should be happy to support – "I will not support any undeclared war, and I will not vote for any budget that is not balanced" – Do you really think any of the current or future (hopefully not) military adventures meet this criteria?

My advice to you, Justin, is to take a deep breath, wait and see how Rand Paul acts once he's actually in the Senate.

Really? No one in government benefits directly from the profits of the M/I complex and it's effects on foreign policy? Really? You think that?

So, none of those 52% of the population that works for the governments directly gets a cut of the pie? It all goes to Wall St.? The billions of dollars in paper-shuffling bureaucracy, the R&D grants, the corruption of science, education and everything else… there's no 'profit' in that for anyone other than the banksters?

Now is not the time for Rand to talk about opposing the war in Afghanistan. He is running for Senate in KENTUCKY, which is a pro-war, socially conservative state. He has said repeatedly that all areas of spending should be on the table for cuts. I am sure Rand will question the wisdom of the war when he is in the Senate, but this election he wants to focus exclusively on the economy and the debt. That is a winning message, and Rand is contrary to teocons like Rubio and Palin who say that defense and war spending should be off the table for cuts.

If Rand Paul is such an avid Zionist, then why doesn't he say that Israel and the US will be friends forever, or that our relationship with Israel is "unbreakable", or other creepy crap like other politicians? Do you think that in socially conservative Kentucky, he is somehow trying to hide how pro-Israel he really is? Come on……..I greatly enjoy this site and your articles, but I think you are being a bit too cynical. I for one am not at all convinced that Rand Paul is a neocon.

Another one gets it wrong. You prove the very point you are trying to counter, Justin.

Rand did NOT come out against the Civil Rights Act, he disagreed with aspects of it, especially
the conflict between civil rights laws and property rights. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWBDWU7qES8 (here you don't have to look at an hour long video)

"it turned out that the woman wasn’t really "kidnapped," although the incident as described did indeed take place – so here’s another case of non-libel."
Ok really? The rest of the incident did happen? News to me. I haven't seen any proof of it. Did Rand admit that? Have other witnesses come forwrd, maybe with photos or videos? But in today's world if the media says it happened, regardless of proof, then it must be our "duty" to believe them. The media is never wrong!!! (yeah, and I got some beachfront property….)

I can't believe Justin considers this column legit. This is why I love today's technology. I can go online an actually see what someone says rather than just reading someone's interpretation of it.

Listen Justin…..if you don't like Rand just say it!!! I can respect someone who can stand up and says what he/she believes. I loath those who use half truths and lies and present them as something authentic and then expect everyone to blindly accept it. Maybe you ought to be a politician!!

And while I too am dismayed at Rand's wishy-washiness about foreign policy and the war party, he does say that he is agains the IMF and World Bank. This is a good thing as they are organizations that help fund henchmen the world over. I don't ever remember seeing a senate candidate bring up these two institutions. I am not totally giving up on him yet.

I did enjoy reading this article, but I think it was jumping to conclusions based on these "meetings" with Rand Paul and the neo-cons. I admit that I am a big Ron Paul supporter and see many similarities between Ron and his son Rand, but they are not identical people. Rand Paul has always held many libertarian ideals, but he's had to tone it down after the primaries to make himself more sellable in the general election. Plus, he's following Ron Paul's advise when he told him to run his campaign like he was always down. Thus, despite him being way ahead in all the polls, Rand's still trying his hardest to build a wider base. True, it might not be the way Ron Paul would have done it, but Rand is his own man, young, and is aspiring to a much more powerful position than Ron Paul.

Also, I don't equate meeting with one's enemies to betrayal. This is one of the things I hated about Bush. He was completely against talking to Iran's president because he equated it to giving in to the terrorists. Being stubborn like this solves nothing! So I'm giving Rand the benefit of the doubt and think that he could have meet with the neocons just to talk and listen to them. Of course, the neocons could have wanted to believe that Rand was absorbing their brand of foreign policy, but what if Rand was just doing it as a PR move to show that he's willing to talk with people in his own party even if they hold different views? Ron Paul talks with Fox News all the time and we all know what their views are about foreign policy (excluding Judge Andrew Napolitano).

Rand Paul has surrounded himself with some of the same NeoCon plants that Ron Paul didn't realize were in his POTUS campaign. I and other loyal Ron Paul people tried to warn Ron of this infiltration but he was blindsided by his "loyalty" to these libetarian traitors. FWIW, I have given $20 to Rand BUT have said no more. Your article simple reinforces this.

of course businesses benefit, but these wars aren't started because some businesses want money–it's about growing power and expanding empire, it's about Trotskyte potential of transforming the world, it's about so many other things..several gears pump the machine of history, but what all those have in common who want war is their opposition to liberty–and so we defend liberty.

secondly, libertarians are always talking about the profiteers of war, but if you think that those ppl are separate from the state, you are smoking the wrong shit man.

the power of the state grows tremendously during war: haven't you heard Randolph Bourne's quote?

Rand has been such a disappointment. I'm only half religious, but whenever I think about him, it's like I automatically pray. Doesn't he realize that Ron only got so much support after he schooled Giuliani about 9/11? that Ron consistently says that the empire is the most important issue? that even if he doesn't win he has the potential to change so many minds, to garner so much support (he's a national figure now), to hold the tea party to its antiwar roots? to save souls?
i know he wants to win, but wouldn't it be just as satisfactory to get up and deliver a bunch of speeches calling all these bastards out and railing against war and how WAR GOT US INTO THIS RECESSION?!!? He has the podium now, he has national spotlight, if he speaks out he will only get more, and i'm sorry, he won't have this again after the election. the public only gets really interested during election times. and besides, i bet he would win—with flying colors! he already has the Republican nomination, the pro-lifers, the anti-tax people, the will still vote for him.

Amen Justin! If Rand doesn't want to "make noise" than we ought to hold him accountable, especially because he originally got so much money and support from Ron's supporters. Let's find ways to make Rand speak out against war and empire!

And I still say Rand Paul's an untrustworthy trimmer. Other voters—and campaign contributors—can embrace "half goods" and "lesser evils" all they like, but they'll simply get more of the same. A man willing to compromise on the great issues of war and empire will, if the wind blows him thither, also compromise on domestic issues (which are, in any case, intimately and intricately bound to the politics empire). And he'll compromise and he'll compromise and he'll waver and he'll trim until he resembles nothing so much as the typical prevaricating Beltway parasite. Other folks can embrace, vote for, or contribute to THAT sort of man—but I'll make NO compromise with ANY evil, regardless of its proportion.

It has been clear to me for some time now that Rand Paul was very different from his father and this article makes that clear. Rand is just another soulless, whore politician who is all ambition and ego and no wisdom or integrity–much like Obama.

Being fair to Paul, we must note AIPAC and the rest of the lobby can campaign negatively just as effectively as they do positively, demonizing those they disfavor and showering their chosen with bounty. A candidate remaining unbowed at the mention Israel is a candidate the lobby actively campaigns against – and likely will be the loser. Also, this is one race and Paul may consider himself primed for bigger stuff. Who knows? At any rate, he'll have to appease the lobby at some point. At risk of popping out yet another "canard", appeasing the Lobby appeases the media. His father is too principled for a national following, and he's virtually demonized by our tightly controlled information industry.

And by picking at a couple of insignificant nits you're avoiding the central point of the article—-i.e., that Rand Paul is getting curiously chummy with certain statist warmongers. This is demonstrable. Hell, he was rolling over for the Israel Lobby BEFORE the primary:http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/22/rand-paul-an…

Is any of this a problem? If you're a statist warmonger, not at all. And if you're one of those true believers who thinks that Rand Paul is playing it stealthy—that he'll come out against war and empire and related anti-liberty doings once he's in—I guess it's currently not a problem either. But I don't share the ideological viewpoint of the former and lack the faith of the latter . . . so it's certainly a problem for me.

The problem with your rationalization is simply this: If Rand Paul is so sure that maintaining his integrity and sticking to his (supposedly) core libertarian beliefs will get him into trouble with Kentucky's electorate and cost him a Senate seat, then it logically follows that to "take off the mask" once he's elected and in office will guarantee that he will be shown the door in six years and replaced by one of the very neocons he claims are his ideological opposites.

No, Rand Paul is interested in one thing, and one thing only: POLITICAL POWER, and he will do anything, ANYTHING, to get it and keep it. This very mindset, this appetite for political power at any cost, is diametrically opposed to everything true libertarianism stands for. If Rand can't even wait to get himself elected before completely compromising his supposed principles, then, as Justin points out, we can only shudder in waves of nausea at the thought of how quickly he'll shed the libertarian mask and go with the flow once he takes his oath of office.

Bottom line: Washington is already awash in unprincipled, amoral power trippers. Who needs one more?

Rand Paul, go back to operating on corneas! As a politician, you're strictly a quack!

Justin, please get a grip, re-read the article. It is another hit piece by Zengerle. His goal is to paint a picture of a kook that will betray his core following. What if I consider the idea of you taking Dan Senor at face value as a betrayal? Justin, you betrayed me. Senor is a liar, remember?

A well-writtten article by Justin Raimondo, as usual. But I think that Rand Paul is surely a lot closer in philosophy to his father than he is to Bill Kristol. It would be awful if he wasn't. The problem with Rand Paul is not that he is a neocon, but that he doesn't have the force or personality or communication skills to get much accomplished. Ron Paul as president might be able to change the world, Rand Paul as senator definitely will not. If he were actually a concrete threat to Bill Kristol's weltanschauung, Kristol wouldn't be meeting him but only attacking him.

Justin great article! Thank you. I have a llot of admiration for Ron Paul but Rand Paul has been a great disappointment. If I were Ron Paul I would disown Rand Paul on behalf of the truth and on behalf of all the people who have supported me and continue to support me.

No way will I support a Libertarian who meets with Bill Krystol. Bill Krystol is one of the ancers/ curses America is infested with.

Bill Krystol is one of the people responsible for mass murder of innocent Muslims through this racket we call war which has destroyed our nation. If Rand Paul does not care about the innocent lives, he does not deserve to win the senate seat. We need to send a strong signal that we dont tolerate cold blooded politicians any longer.

BINGO, was his NAME-O. Mr Raimondo, was the first person to bring doubts about Rand Paul. When I saw the Slate magazine tying him to Krystol. You can not be an antiwar reader/listener without knowing about Kristol. Doing it on the sly, means its a pure Judas act. He knows who supports his dad, and he knows what the establishment Republicans area about. I am guessing its about POWER, and being a career politician, what else could it be….

The "well-he-sort-of-has-to" and "lets-not-jump-to-conclusions" defense of Rand Paul reminds me of the denial that marked the run-up to Obama's election. (Raimondo, however, nailed that one right on the head too). I had a knock-down-drag-out with an Obamabot last week, and she was still ducking for that cover . . . he's doing the best he can; it's so very tough to stop mass murder, torture, mass spying, etc. You might recall that same fiddle playing a similar give-em-the-benefit-of the-doubt tune before the war in Iraq. This sort of inveterate obtuseness among people who should know better takes my breath away.

"In Paul’s case we’re talking about a winning candidate, or at least one whose victory is highly likely: if he’s selling out at this point, one can only wonder what he’d do if he were behind in the polls. I shudder to think about it.

"If he’s already selling out for no good reason, and this before he even gets into office, ask yourself what he’ll do to stay in office. There’s no end to this daisy chain of betrayal-and-rationalization, no logical cut off point for the "temporary" adjustments supposedly necessary for electoral success."

Wrong. Russ was the lone senator to vote against the patriot act, the list goes on and on. I don´t buy your idea that he "sucks up" to the lobby, it would be out of character. More like he agrees with them and is allied more than should be. The anti-war and liberty movement has a precious ally in Russ Feingold and this is a cavalier and arrogant.

Remember it was Sadaam Hussein who made more sense and was telling the truth about the WMD's and it was the Bush/Cheney/Rummy, the holy trinity, who were lying and whose lies were recited faithfully by the MSM.

We need people in Congress who aren't afraid of losing their seat if they stick to their principles. This is most disheartening. I personally can't stand Kristol and his gang of Neocons and am quite disappointed that Rand has taken that route. Even worse AIPAC–the true manipulators of the political system to give a foreign nation carte blanche when it comes to killing their neighbors and receiving sophisticated weapons at no cost thanks to the hard work of the US Taxpayer. Rand needs to wake up and not give in to the dark side even if it means that he will not have power. No more pandering for power. That is the problem this country faces and it is really no different than Obama promising benefits to the unions in exchange for votes. Looks like things will get worse before they get better.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].